Terror plot case: NIA court dismisses bail plea of Tarn Taran man

Special judge Dinesh Kumar Wadhwa rejected the bail application of Jajbir Singh, 40, of Ekalgadda village, Tarn Taran, in an NIA case registered under the Explosive Substances Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the IPC

A special NIA court in Mohali has dismissed the bail plea of a Tarn Taran man accused of collecting and burying two hand grenades as part of a plot to carry out a terror attack in Punjab.

The defence also cited his prolonged custody and the delay in trial. (HT)

Special judge Dinesh Kumar Wadhwa rejected the bail application of Jajbir Singh, 40, of Ekalgadda village, Tarn Taran, in an NIA case registered under the Explosive Substances Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the IPC.

The case dates back to June 2, 2019, when police recovered two hand grenades and a mobile phone from a bag abandoned by two motorcycle-borne men during vehicle checking at Harsha Cheena bus stop in Amritsar district. An FSL report later found that the grenades were manufactured by Pakistan’s armed forces and contained PETN, a high explosive.

According to the NIA’s case, investigation later linked Singh to Harmeet Singh alias PhD, whom the agency described as the self-styled chief of the proscribed Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF), and drug smuggler Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada.

The agency alleged that Singh placed ₹2 lakh and ₹1 lakh at locations near Harike in February 2019 to finance terror activities. It further alleged that on May 10, 2019, Singh and co-accused Varinder Singh Chahal collected two grenades from the Zira-Ferozepur road and buried them in Singh’s cornfields near Dhand village, before sending photographs of the location to Harmeet Singh through WhatsApp.

The NIA relied on digital forensic evidence, Singh’s disclosure statement, an independent witness statement and NHAI movement records. The digital analysis allegedly found photographs of the location where the grenades were buried and photographs of currency bundles.

Singh’s counsel argued that he was not named in the original FIR, police recovered nothing from him and four co-accused had secured bail. The defence also cited his prolonged custody and the delay in trial.

The NIA opposed bail, citing Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and the material collected during the investigation.

The court held that the material on record made out a prima facie case against Singh under the UAPA, triggering the statutory bar on bail. It also rejected the parity argument, noting that the other accused had different alleged roles.

The court said prolonged incarceration could not by itself justify bail in the case and dismissed Singh’s application.